The Grenfell tower fire

Andrew Dismore: Has enough been done to make sure a fire like that at Grenfell Tower could not happen again?

Sadiq Khan: The Grenfell Tower fire was an appalling tragedy and Londoners will always remember the 72 people who lost their lives in a fire that should never have happened. We owe it to the people who died, their loved ones and those who survived to ensure that no fire like that ever happens again.
This week we have seen the results of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) inspection of the LFB. The assessment that the brigade requires improvement across the board is very concerning and only adds to the urgency with which we must pursue transformational change.
I have now appointed a new Fire Commissioner, who has been confirmed by the London Assembly and will take up the post on 1January2020. AndyRoe is a hugely experienced firefighter who will work closely with my Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience to deliver on the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report and the HMICFRS inspection. One of the first priorities he will have is to rebuild trust with the local community and he will seek to meet families affected by the tragedy in the new year.
Like me, the brigade accepts the phase 1 recommendations in full. I have asked for monthly implementation updates from the brigade. I want public regular updates for complete transparency.
Within weeks of the fire I was having to provide funding for important improvements to help keep Londoners safe. Drones and smoke hoods have now been introduced and new aerial appliances have been purchased to be delivered next year. The brigade continues to make wider changes such as looking at new ways of communicating between the control room and the bridgehead, but the Government also needs to do much more to ensure people are safe in their homes. Dangerous cladding needs to be removed from all homes as a priority and sprinklers should be mandatory in all purpose-built blocks. Transformational change to our whole approach to fire safety is now vital to make sure that everyone is safe and feels safe in their homes, a basic right we must deliver for all Londoners.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for your reply. While the LFB has faced criticism over Grenfell, it was not responsible for the fire in the first place. That was down to those responsible for the maintenance and refurbishment of the building, the building owners. Earlier this year [The Rt Hon] JamesBrokenshire [MP], the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, said that all social sector buildings with aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding should be fixed by the end of 2019. The Conservative manifesto said the Government will “support the residents of high-rises with the removal of unsafe cladding”.
Progress made up until this point in removing cladding has been woefully inadequate and it is clear the Government is missing its own deadlines. Many Londoners living in buildings with Grenfell cladding will spend Christmas in fire-risk homes because of these serious delays in the removal of ACM cladding. At least 125 tall buildings in the capital, both private and social sector, are yet to be remediated. Greenwich and Tower Hamlets still have more than 20 towers, Brent, Newham, Wandsworth and Westminster all have more than ten, and another 17 London boroughs have towers left to be fixed. What can you do to put pressure on the Government to ensure remedial work is speeded up?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question and what you said. In my view, I think phase 2 of the inquiry should have happened before phase 1. What led to this building becoming what it did, becoming so dangerous, so that you had combustible cladding and combustible insulation? That is the real concern that you alluded to around the country as well. The Government has chosen to do it the way it did, which is fine, and phase 1 looks at the response to the fire.
I am lobbying the Government. I wrote as recently as today to [The Rt Hon] RobertJenrick [MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government] making representations along the lines of what you have said. I have spoken to him in relation to a fire we had in another part of London, WorcesterPark, which followed a fire in Barking. The issue is not even just ACM cladding on tall buildings. There is non-ACM cladding on tall buildings that is potentially dangerous. There is non-ACM cladding and structures on shorter buildings that are potentially dangerous. If you saw the images of the fire in Barking, a five-storey building, or the fire in Worcester Park, as well as The Cube at Bolton in Manchester, that would cause you alarm. Imagine living in one of those homes. The fire service is doing what it can but I think we are missing the bigger picture here, which is that these buildings are very, very dangerous. It is important for us not to lose sight of the bigger challenges that we are facing.
The fire service has an invidious task now. Of course it is going to transform as a consequence of the recommendations, but the advice it had previously had, that these buildings were safe and you could advise people to stay put, is no longer advice it can use in those buildings.

Andrew Dismore: Thanks for that. Given the critical findings of the Grenfell phase 1 report and the HMICFRS report earlier this week, are you satisfied that the LFB is now getting on top of the action needed to address the recommendations?

Sadiq Khan: Can I disaggregate two parts of my answer? One is that our firefighters are amazing. No firefighter went to Grenfell without wanting to save lives. They are so brave, they work remarkably hard and they are a credit to the brigade. We should really applaud firefighters in our city. They are men and women doing a great job.
There is a separate issue about structures, organisations, management and leadership that has been reflected by the phase 1 report and the report from HMICFRS in relation to training, records and a number of other issues. What is clear is that there were institutional failures in the LFB that led to its response on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire being not as good as it should have been. It is also clear, and heart-breaking, that as a direct consequence of the actual decisions taken, people lost their lives who probably should not have done.
That is why it is really important that we have a Commissioner in place, starting on 1January [2020], who is committed to making sure we get the transformational change needed to address the concerns raised by phase one of the inquiry but also identified by the HMICFRS report as well.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that. Can I say, as Chair of the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee, that we unanimously endorsed AndyRoe’s appointment the other day? Obviously I share your views and comments about London firefighters.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Young Londoners

Fiona Twycross: How are you engaging with young Londoners to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to formulating policy?

Sadiq Khan: Young people must be involved in decisions that shape the capital. One way is through my Peer Outreach Workers. They are a team of 30 young people who represent the diverse life experiences of young Londoners. Their work helps shape my policies, strategies and services, from culture, health and violence reduction to regeneration, the environment and transport. They represent us, reaching into a much bigger pool of young people and then feeding their views back to policy-makers. A good example is how young people are involved in my Young Londoners Fund.
Peer Outreach Workers are now co-designing a youth participation toolkit which will help fund grantees and the wider youth sector to deliver the highest standard of young engagement, participation and leadership. We work hard to better engage children and young people in decisions that affect them by encouraging them to be active citizens. Over 450,000 young Londoners connect with their communities through social action in the Mayor’s school volunteering programme, Team Young London Ambassadors.
Young people are also shaping my London Borough of Culture in Brent through a programme called the Blueprint Collective of 70 young people. They are producing 100 podcasts exploring themes of justice, current affairs and policy and writing a manifesto with the London School of Economics (LSE) so that the views of 15 to 29-year-olds are taken into account when designing public spaces in London. These are just some of the programmes that we do. I hope that gives you a good sense of my commitment to making sure that young people’s voices are heard.
Fiona Twycross AM: Thank you, Mayor. I am sure you are aware of the JackPetchey Foundation’s recent survey, which revealed some quite worrying statistics about how young Londoners feel in relation to politics. Worryingly, only 5% of respondents felt that politicians had listened to their views on Brexit. I welcome the measures you outlined but could you say a few words about what action you have taken to listen to young Londoners’ views specifically on Brexit?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for the question. A number of things just on Brexit. Talk London is the city’s online community and we are getting more young people involved in the community. That means marketing it to young people. I know some people do not like us advertising our services to young people, but we are doing it. We have also opened up City Hall for the day. I know you were there. Many young people were there as well, which is great. It is really important that we have an attitude where we do not think about young people as being hard to reach. We are hard to reach. We have to make it easier for young people. That means going out there as well.
The other thing that is relevant to the issue of Brexit is My Life My Say, a brilliant charity working with young people. We encouraged them to hold their Futures Forum event here in CityHall, and I spoke at that event and engaged with many young people, and more importantly listened to them and related to some of their concerns and aspirations going forward.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. Despite feeling politicians have not listened to them on Brexit, five out of ten young people surveyed said that their dissatisfaction was more likely to make them vote in the future. Would you agree that this shows young Londoners care about political issues? You have outlined some of the ways they want to make a positive difference. Would you agree that this demonstrates that they do want to make a positive difference, despite how they are sometimes portrayed by the media?

Sadiq Khan: Young people really care. They are interested. They like politics. Not party politics, but they like politics. They are interested in political issues. I think we do a disservice by not making it easier for them to get involved and empowering young people. I want to turn young people into not just citizens but active citizens going forward. The alternative is people not just being apathetic but being cynical. There is nothing worse than a young person who is cynical or apathetic. We want to inspire them, encourage them, put down ladders to help them get involved in politics and eventually party politics as well.
I think we have shown today some examples of how we can work across political parties, whether it is in relation to air quality or road safety. We need more of that because that will engender a sense that all politicians, from different parties, have our best interests at heart. We have to think about how we conduct ourselves because that can lead to people being put off party politics.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you, Mayor.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. A quick plug for the excellent work of MeteCoban [Chief Executive Officer] and My Life My Say, and their amazing work mobilising youngsters around the political arena.

Hammersmith Bridge and Cycleway 9

Tony Arbour: Given the significant additional traffic caused by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, and the strong opposition to Cycleway 9 in its current form, will you commit to not starting any physical work on Cycleway 9 until both a temporary bridge and an agreement on a far better proposal for Cycleway 9 has been reached?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Enabling works for the new cycle lane between Brentford and Olympia started at Kew Bridge last week. The main works are due to start on Monday. There is strong support for this new route; 59% of people who responded to the consultation supported the plans. Any further delay is another day on which people face unnecessary road danger. This new safer cycling route will enable many more people to get around with confidence on foot and by bike. For this reason, the scheme should not be delayed.
TfL has worked closely with the boroughs of Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham to design the scheme, and I commend both boroughs for recognising the urgent need to make London roads safer. The main works have been planned to start over the Christmas holidays because roads drop to 15% quieter during this period. TfL will monitor traffic in the area and adjust traffic signal timings where necessary. TfL is running an extensive communications campaign to ensure people in the area are aware of the works and encourage them to use alternative routes where possible.
As I have made clear before, I want Hammersmith Bridge to reopen to traffic as quickly as possible. The project to do this is now up and running and work started onsite in November. Hammersmith and Fulham Council closed the bridge to motorists for safety reasons and since then TfL has been doing what it can to manage the impact of the closure to support the council in restoring the bridge. TfL has also allocated £25million to the project and will continue to support the council in identifying the remaining funding for the restoration. I understand that Conservative Ministers said during the election campaign that they would help also with funding if they returned to Government, so I look forward to seeing this money made available in the near future. TfL is managing the impact of the bridge’s closure using every resource at its disposal, including making traffic signal changes, adjusting local bus services and providing an enhanced dial-a-ride service.

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much. Would you agree, Mr Mayor, that now Brexit has been done, for the residents of Kew, Hammersmith should be done, for the resident of Barnes, Hammersmith should be done, for the residents of Chiswick, Hammersmith should be done, and for the residents of Putney, Hammersmith should be done? Right across southwest London, the most important problem facing those residents is that Hammersmith Bridge and the impact of its closure should be fixed. Under those circumstances, do you not think that your answer to the question about the simultaneous work being carried out while the bridge is closed on the new cycleway is going to exacerbate the problems of all of the residents of the areas that I have mentioned by limiting the amount of road space that is available for traffic that has already been displaced?

Sadiq Khan: There are two short points I would make in starting to respond to that question. In the last three years alone, along the area we are talking about where the cycleway will go, there have been 155 pedestrian and cyclist casualties. Two people have lost their lives and 20 more people have suffered serious injuries. I have met bereaved families who have suffered road traffic accidents and also those who have suffered serious injuries. I think we cannot wait a day too long to make that path safer. The second point I would make is that starting these works over the Christmas period, when there is less traffic, learning the lessons of previous construction to try to reduce the inconvenience, is, I think, a sensible way to progress.

Tony Arbour: I would suggest, Mr Mayor, that having Hammersmith done would mean infinitely fewer deaths, for example, from the increased pollution that is going to be created by the simultaneous work on the cycleway and the effect of the closure of the bridge. That will outnumber the possible fatalities which might be caused because there is no cycleway.
Secondly, I would say that for the residents of southwest London who are being caused the most incredible inconvenience as well as health problems by Hammersmith not being done, you have failed to take strategic action on this. I raised the matter before and I said that if you were really an activist Mayor who wanted to get something done, you would not hide behind the financial restrictions which Hammersmith and Fulham [London Borough Council], it is suggested, are putting in your way of doing this; you would step in and you would build a bridge. You would put in a temporary bridge straight away. You gave me an undertaking that you would consider a temporary bridge to get Hammersmith done. When the work was done, then you should ask for the bills to be paid. That is what an activist Mayor should be doing. That is what a strategic Mayor should be doing. You would be solving infinitely more problems by doing this rapidly and I would suggest to you there would be many fewer deaths.

Jennette Arnold: I suggest you get an answer in writing because you have run out of time. Let us go to the next question.

Fuel Poverty

Leonie Cooper: As the weather gets colder, what progress have you made in supporting Londoners living in fuel poverty - and what support will fuel-poor households receive this coming winter?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. 398,000 London households are fuel-poor, the highest level since records began. It is inexcusable that over 3,100 excess winter deaths occur annually in London. Through my Fuel Poverty Action Plan we are tackling fuel poverty on three fronts: improving energy efficiency, maximising incomes and delivering fairer energy bills.
Firstly, my Warmer Homes programme improved the energy efficiency of 1,159 homes between January 2018 and September 2019. A second phase will begin in the new year, improving a further 1,188 homes. Reaching those most in need is key, and my Warmer Homes Advice Service has already reached over 3,000 vulnerable households. Secondly, we know that lifting the incomes of those who are fuel-poor helps them pay their bills. I will be commissioning an income maximisation service in 2020.
Thirdly, there is an urgent need to deliver an energy market that works for fuel-poor Londoners. London Power will offer fair, affordable energy and excellent customer service to those living in fuel poverty. This will be launched in the new year. Underpinning this is my Fuel Poverty Partnership, bringing together boroughs, the NHS, the third sector and industry to collaborate on tackling fuel poverty. The partnership has successfully delivered, from distribution of Warmer Homes information to pharmacists, emergency departments and GP surgeries to successfully lobbying on protections for prepayment meter users.
We are doing a great job this winter but without greater action from Government progress will be limited. The clearest illustration of inaction is that London receives 6.7% of the Government’s key scheme for tackling fuel poverty despite having 13% of Great Britain’s population. This means Londoners lose out on £14million annually. Government ambition on solid wall insulation is also woeful. At current rates it would take over 250 years to insulate the solid-walled homes of London’s fuel-poor. I have called for devolution of the energy company obligation to London and a fairer portion of the funds, like the powers available to Scotland. Too many Londoners are living in fuel poverty and despite Government’s inaction there are things that we are doing to help.

Léonie Cooper: Mr Mayor, thank you very much for that comprehensive answer. It is obviously an area that I have repeatedly asked you about because it is of such concern. We just talked about homelessness but we also have people living in cold homes when they are in homes. You just mentioned London Power. It obviously has the potential to transform the energy sector in London. How will you make sure that the maximum possible number of people sign up and that we see households benefiting from it?

Sadiq Khan: We were due to launch London Power in the last few weeks but purdah got in the way and the advice from the officers was not to. We hope to launch it in the New Year. I will be criticised from some Members of the Assembly but we will have a marketing campaign. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not. If we do not market it, I am criticised for people not being aware of it. If we do market it, these guys criticise us for marketing things. We do need to market it because we need to make sure vulnerable customers know about London Power and take advantage of what we are offering. We will also be offering a toolkit for boroughs to use because they know their communities better than anybody. London Power will be fair, affordable, green and specially designed for the fuel-poor that you care so much about.

Léonie Cooper: You talked about the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) as well, which has been a massive problem for us here in London. It has not really been a great success. Even without Government support, what more can we do? We still have so many properties that languish at F and G ratings and the Government does not really seem to be stepping forward. They scrapped the feed-in tariff. Is there anything that we can do? I know that you have had your own London Community Energy Fund, which has been really successful. I was privileged to host the Community Energy Awards and there is some really fantastic work being done in London and around the rest of the country. Is there anything else that we can do to step up where the Government is not?

Sadiq Khan: We have to be honest. We cannot fill the massive hole left by lack of Government support. That is one of my frustrations around the climate emergency as well. There is only so much we can do without national Government support. We are giving record sums from City Hall. City Hall has never done the stuff we are doing. We are helping record numbers through Energy for Londoners and we are making sure as many homes as possible are insulated and retrofitted in relation to energy efficiency and renewable measures. You have talked in the past about the London boiler cashback scheme. We are doing what we can, but we are helping people across London in the single thousands when we really need to be helping Londoners in the tens of thousands.
What I am hoping, now that the Government has a new mandate for a period of time – bearing in mind it is a real blight, the issue of fuel poverty in London, one of the richest cities in the world – is that the Government will realise that it has to step up now and give us some support. By the way, this can create jobs for the future. We could have a green new deal that not only helps those who are fuel-poor and reduces the number of winter deaths but also creates jobs going forward. It is a win-win.

Léonie Cooper: I am really hoping that we are going to see some positive action here and the devolution of power and responsibility to City Hall. Thank you very much, Chair

Passenger safety in London

Caroline Pidgeon: What are you doing to ensure the highest level of safety and service for Private Hire passengers in London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. The safety and security of Londoners is always my number one priority. As the independent regulator and licensing authority for private hire vehicles (PHVs) in London, I am pleased that TfL is prepared to take difficult and sometimes controversial decisions to protect the travelling public.
This was demonstrated very clearly in the way that TfL has handled the two most recent issues relating to London’s private hire trade, namely Uber and the findings of the BBC’s Inside Out programme, which exposed wannabe private hire drivers fraudulently obtaining vocational qualifications to support licence applications.
On Uber, at the end of November2019, TfL took the decision not to issue the company with a new licence. This was because, despite some improvements to the way Uber was managed, a number of safety breaches had been identified which put passengers at risk. This included 14,000 trips made by drivers who had manipulated photo settings on another driver’s account, meaning all of these journeys were uninsured, and in some cases people were picked up by drivers who had had their licences revoked by TfL. Another failure allowed dismissed or suspended drivers to create an Uber account and carry passengers, again compromising passenger safety and security. Following independent advice about the robustness of Uber’s systems, TfL concluded that it could not be sure that other problems might not emerge again in the future and so judged Uber not to be fit and proper. I fully support TfL in the decision it took.
On the issue of some private hire drivers paying cash for qualifications at a training centre in Newham, I was clear with TfL that it needed to do an urgent and comprehensive investigation into all private hire drivers who had been licensed but had not attended a TfL centre to prove their map reading and route planning skills. This has resulted in 143 drivers having their licences revoked and over 200 pending applications refused. All of these drivers had attended the centre in question. From February2020, no vocational qualifications will be accepted as evidence of topographical skills and all applicants for a licence will have to attend an accredited centre.
This type of robust and decisive action is what the public expects and I will continue to support TfL in its vital work.

Caroline Pidgeon: Lovely. Thank you very much for that. I am pleased to hear that you personally got involved following the BBC’s Inside Out investigation. Can you just confirm by when you can guarantee that no one can cheat on these basic safety checks to be a private hire driver?

Sadiq Khan: The new system will begin in February2020.

Caroline Pidgeon: That is really very welcome. Picking up on the issue of fatigue facing drivers, I welcome recently that TfL has done some work relating to bus drivers and excellent research by Loughborough University which was recently published.
One of its findings was that one in six London bus drivers has fallen asleep driving at least once in the last year. For some bus drivers it was far more frequent. Another finding was that 36% of drivers had had a near miss in the last year due to tiredness.
In terms of ensuring the safety of Londoners and passengers, will you commit today to extend this study into fatigue levels to look at taxi and private hire drivers as well?

Sadiq Khan: Let us deal with a number of those issues. Firstly, it is worth putting on record that this came to our attention because of the fantastic work done by Unite, the trade union, a good example of a trade union making recommendations that improve public safety. It is not simply their workers who benefit but the public benefits as well. There is both a consumer interest and a producer interest.
As a consequence of the independent work undertaken by Loughborough, we are working with not just Unite but the operators of the buses to make sure we address the issue of fatigue.
The issue in relation to private vehicles is a bit more complicated because we do not have the same relationship with the operators as we do with the bus companies. You will be aware of my concerns about the way the whole regulation around private hire vehicles works. We are lobbying the Government in relation to a number of changes.
The good news is the Government recently had a task and finish group working with us and they have some plans to make changes around here. As part of those conversations, we will talk about, for example, London being able to decide the number of PHVs in London and more control over that. At the moment we have no powers to do some of the things we would like to do. We have a different relationship with the buses for obvious reasons, but we would like to address the issue of fatigue across all those who are responsible for taking people around our city.

Caroline Pidgeon: Would you today go away and look at how you could do a similar study with the private hire sector in London – we have some big players as we know in the system there – to make sure that we maintain safety for passengers and other road users in the capital?

Sadiq Khan: The issue is not knowing if there is a problem. We know there is a problem. The issue is what the solution would be. We do not have the same levers with operators in the private hire sector as we have with trams, which were also an issue, and buses and the Tubes and the trains. There is a whole issue around regulation of PHVs and that is one of the issues that I am hoping the Government will resolve going forward once we have more control and more levers.
I will give you another example: the gig economy. We know many private vehicle drivers work for more than one operator and work many hours because of the skimming from the top made by the operators. They have to do that. They could go from one operator to another operator. There are lots of concerns about loopholes but, actually, the reason why the loopholes are there is because there is so poor regulation.

Caroline Pidgeon: I agree with you on that and I think you know that. The issue for me here is that you could do some research looking at this. You can look at other cities. New York has brought in some measures which have absolutely reduced the number of hours that private hire drivers can drive in that city. They think you could do something similar within the existing legislation.

Sadiq Khan: Because they have more powers–

Caroline Pidgeon: I am just asking. Would you consider doing similar research? The findings on bus drivers are so damning. One in six fell asleep at the wheel in the last year. It is probably something similar for private hire. We need to do something about this. Would you look at doing some research in this area?

Sadiq Khan: Either deliberately or unintentionally, the AssemblyMember is not understanding the problems in relation to regulation of PHVs which are not there in relation to buses.

Caroline Pidgeon: OK. That is a no. Thank you very much, MrMayor. Disappointing. I thought you would have supported that.

Crime on the Tube and Buses

Tony Devenish: Why has crime on TfL’s Bus and Tube networks jumped by 30% in a year under your watch?

Sadiq Khan: Can I thank the AssemblyMember for his really important question? Our transport networks in London are safe. However, one crime is always one too many and we take this issue incredibly seriously. Every day, 11million passengers travel on TfL’s public transport services. For every 1million passenger journeys, there are ten reported crimes. By comparison, if we look at Britain’s railways, in 2018/19 the crime rate was 21 reported crimes per 1million journeys. That is more than double the London figure. There has been some low-level violence and aggression between passengers, but serious violence, thankfully, remains extremely rare.
TfL and the police will continue to prioritise dealing with high-harm offences such as sexual offences and violent crime. Thefts are where the increase in crime has largely come from. The rise can partly be explained by the British Transport Police (BTP) launching an online crime reporting tool in October2018. When this was introduced, theft reports spiked, meaning they are now recording crimes that may previously have gone unreported.
The police are using a range of tactics to tackle criminal activity including plainclothes and uniform patrols and large-scale operations. We have around 3,000 police and police community support officers dedicated to policing the transport network and more than 77,000 CCTV cameras across London’s transport network. This includes 12,000 cameras across the Tube network.
In response to the spike in thefts, the BTP and the MPS have been working together in Operation Farrier. Since it started in June [2019], there has been a reduction in offences. The operation sought to tackle the prolific thieves working as part of organised criminal networks who target the network. In the autumn, 18 individuals received custodial sentences for their involvement in theft offences in London’s transport network.
TfL is also publicising crime prevention advice to customers. As part of Operation Farrier, a week of action in September [2019] saw hundreds of officers working with TfL staff at the busiest stations to give advice to customers. Thousands of private prevention leaflets and skim-safe card protectors were handed out and portable digital screens were used at Liverpool Street and Victoria Main Line Stations to display crime prevention advice. Oyster Card data and witness statements are being used to support investigations and increase the likelihood of offenders being brought to justice. Successful outcomes against offenders are also publicised to deter offenders and make passengers feel safe.

Tony Devenish: Thank you, MrMayor. I think we would agree the one thing you fully control as Mayor of London is our transport network. How exactly do you propose to cut crime from the 30% increase and what would success look like, a figure, so that you can actually demonstrate that you have succeeded in cutting crime rather than crime going up on our network, please?

Sadiq Khan: As I have explained in my answer, crime is going up generally on the public transport estate across the country, as indeed it is on the streets. One of the reasons is because criminals are targeting the public transport estate across the country. You have seen, for 1million journeys, it has more than doubled across the country. In London, we should be hopeful because, since June [2019] when Operation Farrier began, we have seen a reduction in thefts across London.
One of the advantages of the online reporting device BTP has is more people have the confidence now to report. It is really easy to do. That has led to an increase. We will have to see in a year’s time whether that has led to a stabilisation because we will have a benchmark to go against. If you see the bar chart that I have, you will see the increase started after the new system of reporting and one of the explanations given to me is the increase is caused by the ease with which you can now report theft. A huge number of the increase is caused by theft rather than other offences, which is sobering.

Tony Devenish: You accept this is very alarming. Have you asked for a target? I appreciate your point about how you have to measure the data that is coming in, but have you said to them that we must get back to where it was or reduce it by X? Have you set people a target? Otherwise, how are we going to know whether it is a success? Every incident, of course, is very alarming.

Sadiq Khan: Yes, it is. Thank you for the way you asked the question. In 2018/19 we will find a benchmark for thefts. We are encouraging more people to report. You will be aware of the survey done in 2013/14, which showed that more than 90% of unwarranted sexual behaviour was not reported. I say - not in a flippant way - we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We are encouraging more reporting and then we are criticised when there is more reporting of crime and it appears crime is going up.
The explanation I have received is in relation to unwarranted sexual behaviour and theft. The increase in reporting can be explained by more confidence. Report It to Stop It is one example. However, you are right. There has to be a stage where you have a benchmark and can go forward. We have a benchmark now. The BTP and TfL know the importance of reducing crime.
I just say this, though. The BTP are paid for partially in London by TfL. You will beware of the cuts in operating revenue. Clearly, we can pay for more BTP and get more police if we have more resources. That is not just the MPS but it is more resources for TfL to pay for more BTP police as well.

Tony Devenish: I will leave it there. Thank you.

Sanction Detection Rates

Unmesh Desai: The overall sanction detection rate, or number of crimes solved in the capital, fell by 27% in the 12 months to October. What work are you undertaking with the Crown Prosecution Service to help increase the number of crimes being solved?

The Mayor: Len Duvall AM (on behalf of Unmesh Desai AM)

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Sanction detections are when offences have been resolved through a formal sanction, including being charged or receiving a caution. The current level of around 8% is far too low, something that the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] and I have said before. My Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and I regularly discuss this with MPS senior leaders as part of our oversight.
The problem of low sanction detections is not limited to London. Annual detection figures show a fall in rates nationally since 2014. While sanction detection rates are important, previous national targets drove perverse behaviour which criminalised people for very minor offences and artificially inflated numbers. In London, the decline in sanction detections is linked to falling officer numbers, historically low numbers of detectives, the rising complexity of high-harm crimes and an increase in non-crime demand on the police, including mental health and missing persons.
The MPS is working with the CPS to improve the quality of case files to ensure charging decisions are made where appropriate, but we cannot shy away from the fact that the MPS is having to do more with less. The crippling Government cuts to police funding since 2010 have resulted in officer and detective numbers falling to a 15-year low last year. The fact is you simply cannot do justice on the cheap.
Len Duvall AM: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Look, there are a whole number of issues where this is important but I do feel austerity has taken the eye off the ball on sanction detections because this is the way or one of the ways that we should judge effective policing. We are asking you, Mr Mayor, in your regular meetings with the Commissioner, to start asking some real in-depth questions around sanction detection rates and ask the MPS to bring forward their own plan, not just in terms of your conversations but in a much more dynamic way with Londoners about sanction detection and their part in producing it. I know there are other factors in why sanction detection rates do not happen, but what can the MPS do to improve this situation?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for that question. In short, yes, you are right, there are other factors outside the police’s control, but what can the police do with those things within their control? The good news is the MPS Commissioner, her deputy and her team are well seized of this concern. There are two big things they have started to do, which hopefully you will welcome.
Firstly, you will remember the example of an officer who first comes to you when you report crime, takes down the details and passes them to another officer, then he or she passes them to another officer and someone else investigates. Things get lost before they reach the CPS. One of the things the police are doing as part of improving sanction detection rates is called the Strengthening Local Policing programme. What that means, basically, is that one officer will hopefully take charge of the entire investigation, which is really important because a handover can lead to balls being dropped. More routine investigations will be undertaken by response officers. That also means that detectives are freed up to concentrate on other issues.
The second thing that hopefully you will find welcome is that we are recruiting more detectives. You will be aware that there is a nationwide shortage of detectives for a variety of reasons. We are now recruiting record numbers of detectives and we also have direct entry detectives as well, which are helping police officers. The idea is that detectives can do the stuff that needs detective expertise. Other officers will do more of the investigation all the way through. We are making sure that the police are raising their game, but I am glad you recognise that there are other parts of the criminal justice system which are also a concern.

Len Duvall: I do, and I do recognise and welcome the issues around some of the reforms about police officers owning the investigation of crimes.

Sadiq Khan: Exactly.

Len Duvall: Combining that with screening out crimes, I am worried about the quality and level of supervision and the pressure the police are under. What we need to understand is what is actually going on with crimes being reported and then fed back to people. We are screening out far too many crimes. I share with you a desire to tackle violent crimes and sexual violent crimes, and they are very complicated crimes to investigate, the latter that I have just mentioned. What is happening too often is that the screening-out process is about managing the process rather than actually detecting crime. Now, in some cases I accept we will not ever get to the bottom of that, but we really need to be assured by police management around what is happening on the ground, that they are top of this, and that they can give us some confidence or – more importantly – give confidence back to Londoners about what is going on when people are brought in.

Sadiq Khan: Very good. I am concerned, like you are, about how the rationing of finite services occurs. We call it triaging. You call it screening out. The Basic Command Units (BCUs) across London, all 12 of them, understand there are pan-London priorities and there are local priorities that a borough will have. Not all boroughs have the same priorities. Antisocial behaviour has more priority in some areas, less in others. What you call the screening out I call the rationing or the triaging. It differs, say for the pan-London ones, depending on which borough you are operating in. I have to be honest, though. The triaging, the screening out, is different now to what it was ten years ago because we have fewer police officers, fewer front-line officers, and the bar, I am afraid, is higher than it was. You will receive complaints from constituents about crimes that used to be investigated properly in yesteryear but are not now. That upsets me as well as it does your constituents and my constituents. The police are trying their best with limited resources.
As we get more officers coming onstream, things will improve, but here is the problem: the officers coming onstream are junior officers. That is why I was really pleased you raised the issue of supervision and management. We will have the new officers coming onstream, 1,300 thanks to our funding from City Hall, but who is going to manage and supervise them? The police are thinking about how they are going to manage and supervise these officers. We are not going to train them up and then have them leave because of a lack of supervision. You have identified the challenges and we are trying to address those.

Len Duvall: Chair, I am really pushed for time but I want to praise the BBC investigation that took place during the General Election and may not have been given sufficient coverage. It is, again, one of those issues. It is the release under investigation issue. I think not in the last year but in the previous year from when it was first introduced, 2017, we had over 46,000 crimes that were released under investigation.
The real issue for me – and you have instituted this, you have put it in your Police and Crime Plan – is that we want bail conditions, where there are conditions, to be part of tackling that drive in violent crime and sexual crime. We heard a number of stories of what happened outside and I think they are a scandalous aspect of that. I do not want to bring the police into disrepute – I think they work hard on behalf of our communities – but here in London, if those figures are correct, we could be sitting on a big problem.
The big problem for me is that we have a separate bail and custody command from people working on the ground. There is nothing that drives morale lower, in terms of serving police officers, than if you think you are arresting people and bringing people to book and actually they are being sent out the door the next day, particularly when they are a threat to our community and there are no conditions placed on it. Can you urgently, because I am not sure if the police have done this, now the General Election is over, look at the situation in London, emphasise that bail conditions are an important part in driving down crime and protecting our communities, and also just ensure that there are no adverse consequences from this system that has been imposed on policing, probably through austerity? We need to bring it back onto our side in tackling crime.

Sadiq Khan: Yes. Can I just be candid here, as I often try to be? I think a huge mistake was made in bringing in these changes. The release under investigation system has not worked. It was a mistake and the consequences have been awful. I have discussed this with the Commissioner. I have also discussed it with the current Home Secretary and the previous one. I think the Government realises it is not working, I think the BBC investigation was useful empirical evidence, including case studies of the consequences, and I am lobbying the Government to change this system. It is not working.
You mentioned the morale of the police. Imagine how a witness or a victim feels when they report to the police, often taking real courage to do so, see somebody arrested, taken to the police station and then, in inverted commas, ‘released under investigation’, not even with bail conditions attached. We discussed earlier the issue of swift justice. This is the opposite of swift justice. I will continue to lobby the Government. I am optimistic that we will get some change here. Sometimes you have to put your hand up and say, “We brought this change in. It has not worked. Let us do a U-turn”.

Len Duvall: Just very quickly, Mr Mayor, it is not an operational aspect, it is a policy aspect.

Sadiq Khan: It is the Government, yes.

Len Duvall: We need to be telling what we expect in terms of London policing and about how that policy is enacted to avoid some of those scandals. Thank you, Chair.

Vision Zero for 2020

Caroline Russell: With more fatalities on London’s roads in 2019 than in 2018, what steps will you take to make the new year a safer one for Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: I am determined to achieve Vision Zero and to eradicate deaths and serious injuries from London’s streets. This means that 2020 will see a further step change in both the pace and urgency of programmes to tackle road danger. TfL and the MPS are working hard to reduce these tragic events. Next year will see the delivery of infrastructure schemes across the Healthy Streets investment portfolio to make London streets safer. Examples include more safer junctions, with 41 complete by the end of my current term. All TfL roads within the Congestion Charging Zone (C-Charge) will be 20 miles per hour by next April. TfL is on track to meet my target of tripling the amount of protected space for cycling, and the expansion of the cycle network will continue at pace.
Communications and behaviour change programmes, such as TfL’s powerful Watch Your Speed marketing campaign, will continue to improve road user behaviour to reduce risk on our roads. I have launched the Direct Vision Standard in October [2019]. That seeks to eliminate dangerous heavy goods vehicle blind spots, proven to be the cause of pedestrian and cyclist death and serious injuries. Enforcement will start in October 2020. There will be further safety improvements introduced to the bus fleet through our world-leading Bus Safety Standard. The police service will also further ramp up enforcement through Operation Vision Zero to tackle illegal and unsafe road user behaviour, and there will be an even greater emphasis on preventing speeding.
Let me just end by saying this. TfL and I will continue to support the London boroughs to deliver Vision Zero and help them develop ambitious proposals to reduce death and serious injuries on the 95% of London’s roads that are their responsibility.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, Mr Mayor. It is very good to hear about the extra police enforcement. This is a crisis. 134 families are grieving the loss of people killed on London’s roads this year so far, and that is not taking account of the many people who have suffered very serious injuries.
My Hostile Streets report for the Transport Committee focused on outer London because that is where the greatest change is needed. Nearly two-thirds of this year’s road deaths are in outer London. You have said lowering speeds is one of the most important things that we can do to make our streets safer. What are you going to do to cut speeds beyond central London in 2020?

Sadiq Khan: Thanks for that question and, by the way, thanks for your long interest in this matter in relation to campaigning for change.
One of the things I alluded to in my answer was that 95% of roads are not in our control. They are controlled by the boroughs, we are working with boroughs. Some of it is - I say this not to patronise boroughs - to persuade them why it is important to address this issue. Sometimes, I have to tell you, there is resistance from residents about reducing speed limits. The 20’s Plenty campaign does not always have the support. We are helping boroughs to try to persuade them to do the right thing but also give them support financially through funding to try to do the right thing, not just around schools but other areas as well. Any help you can give is much appreciated, persuading councils to do the right thing. One death is one too many, and you are right, and we have had too many deaths this year.

Caroline Russell: I think the majority of the crashes where people are killed or very seriously injured happen on main roads, and a lot of them are on TfL roads as well as the boroughs’. Yes, you are right to point out the boroughs, but TfL roads are also part of this picture. The thing is that these very fast main roads run through communities. They are actually residential roads. They are places where people live, shop and need to cross the road, such as out in Brentford, some of those big roads, Gallows Corner. There are roads all over London where communities are living right up close to very, very fast-flowing traffic.
I worry that you are making this all a bit too complicated, with lots of short sections of 20mph limits. Have you thought about TfL trialling 20mph limits on whole sections of road in its control beyond central London, so rolling out 20mph much more widely?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. What we are doing, Chair, is working with the boroughs within the C-Charge area, 20mph from April, and then the plan is to have the TfL road network move in that direction going forward as well. One could argue that is a form of piloting, as you have suggested, which is we do it first in central London and then roll it out.
The reality is - you know this - that if a car is going faster and comes into contact with a human being, there is more likelihood of that person suffering serious injury, if not death. That is why it is important to encourage drivers to go slower. For 20’s Plenty, the idea is to spread it across London. We start in central London.

Caroline Russell: OK. You have started in central London, but you have most of the crashes in outer London. Do you have plans to roll it out over this next year in outer London?

Sadiq Khan: It will not happen before the mayoral election. We think we will get to central London by April 2020. It will happen after the election, should I win a second term.

Caroline Russell: OK, thank you. With fellow members of the Transport Committee, I recently visited the SarahHope Line phone line, which is there to provide support for people affected by traumatic incidents on London’s transport network. SarahHope’s original vision was for this line to help road crash victims. How do we support the line to reach more of these people?

Sadiq Khan: I have met recently with those responsible for this charity, and one of the things we discussed was how we can reach more people, whether it is better marketing. I know it will be criticised by these guys for marketing. One of the issues is how do we market the Sarah Hope Line better? I am hoping that when we do market it more, I am not criticised for doing so. I think it is important we reach more people. Often people are suffering the consequences of an incident on the road and they will not know who to turn to, so I think we have to make more people aware of the fantastic work the Sarah Hope Line does. I have seen for myself, with the Croydon tram crash and other injuries across London where it has been a real lifesaver.

Caroline Russell: Certainly, when I visited the Sarah Hope Line with the Transport Committee, we noticed that the cases were mostly public transport related and not from traumatic incidents on the road network. It is good to hear that you are thinking about doing more marketing for the Sarah Hope Line, and that is very positive. Will you ensure that the Sarah Hope Line is able to support everyone affected by death and serious injury on our transport network, including on London’s roads?

Sadiq Khan: That is the ambition. You will appreciate why, for obvious reasons, those who suffer injuries through public transport are more likely to hear about the Sarah Hope Line because TfL can then tell people who have suffered injury and their bereaved families about it. Question: how do we reach those who have suffered injuries, as you have said, in private accidents across London? That is why we are looking into how we can market the Sarah Hope Line more. I am afraid that is going to cost. I want us to be careful about taking on those who say we should not be marketing the Sarah Hope Line.

Caroline Russell: I hope all Assembly Members would support the marketing of the Sarah Hope Line. Mr Mayor, every death on our roads is a tragedy, and Vision Zero is not just a target. It has to be experienced now as a real change on our streets. I have no further questions.

Sadiq Khan: I agree with that. Thank you, Chair.

Vitality of Small Businesses and High Streets

Navin Shah: The Federation of Small Businesses (‘FSB’) have called for radical business rates reform to provide financial assistance for businesses impacted by Brexit uncertainty. With the high streets facing ‘retail apocalypse’, do you agree with the range of measures indicated in FSB’s recommendations to the Chancellor and what measures are necessary to help London’s small businesses and stop the decline in London’s High Streets?

Sadiq Khan: Small businesses are the backbone of London’s economy. Our high streets are not only vital business hubs but central to the life of our communities. That is why the work that the Federation of Small Businesses has done and that we are doing at City Hall to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and revitalise our high streets is so important. Giving London more control over taxes like these would allow us to better support high streets as more people shop online and we face economic uncertainty due to Brexit. The taxes I refer to, of course, are the amount that London businesses are forecast to pay in business rates.
The new Government should seize the opportunity for a wholesale transfer of fiscal responsibilities recommended by the London Finance Commission, which was commissioned by [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP, Prime Minister], including the full devolution of business rates. The FSB’s campaign has highlighted a number of anomalies – for example, the rateable value threshold – and we agree with them in relation to the changes that need to be made. Our Draft London Plan and Economic Development Strategy tries to encourage boroughs to regenerate high streets. Additionally, we have a £26million Good Growth Fund to assist in relation to high street and town centre improvements. I know that Assembly Member Shah is an advocate of the high street, not just small businesses.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Mr Mayor. The Queen’s Speech refers to measures to help high streets with a £320million cut in business rates. I am not sure how much of that will help London high streets and particularly small businesses. They also talk about a rates review. We will see what it is. I know, Mr Mayor, that you promoted devolution of business rates to London. The question is: except for what you are promoting in the London Plan, what other steps have you taken so far to halt the decline of high streets, which is a major concern in London and across the nation?

Sadiq Khan: I think we need to be honest. Because of transformations in the way people shop through the internet and the way people do leisure activities, unless we support the high streets we will have ghost towns across our city. That is why we need to support our small businesses and support our shops on the high street.
We lobbied the Government in relation to changing the rules in relation to the retail relief scheme that it has, but also we are doing things to support the high street from the Good Growth Fund, from the London Plan and from having more leisure activities in town centres. You saw in Waltham Forest how small businesses have benefited from a combination of more cycleways and also the London Borough of Culture. We are doing lots of things to support small businesses but what we need is more power in relation to spending monies raised locally, locally. That is why devolution would make a big difference.

Navin Shah: I have always supported economic growth and housing through Opportunity Areas as well as Intensification Areas. The question is: could it be that those very measures are hindering high streets? Is there a case to redefine what high streets are and the role they play in social cohesion and accessibility for elderly people, for example, or families who do not want to go out to supermarkets and so on?

Sadiq Khan: That is really important. For a lot of older people, the only conversation they will have, often, in a day is the conversation with a shopkeeper. There are fewer post offices. Many older people will not go to the local pub. You have identified a really important benefit of a vibrant high street in relation to loneliness, dignity and community cohesion, and that is why you are right to ask the question, “Are the criteria we use good?”
We are looking into this in relation to the work we are doing. One of the reasons why we are supporting the high street is this very area. That is where culture is important. We supported a scheme in Lewisham where culture was used to help older people, to get them together to address the issue of loneliness. You are right to identify whether it may be a hindrance, the current Opportunity and Intensification Areas, or a help. We always review this regularly and we are looking at what we can do to address the very issue you have identified.

Navin Shah: When we look at Opportunity Area projects and so on, perhaps we could be missing a trick out there in terms of getting some benefits from those large projects coming up which can sustain some of the high street regeneration that needs to happen. I am not sure if that is being done by planning authorities or how much the London Plan can help to achieve this.

Sadiq Khan: We will do what we can, as I said in my answer, in the draft London Plan, the Good Growth Fund and other areas. There is work we are doing in the Economic Development Strategy. However, any more ideas – I know the Assembly Member has huge experience particularly in outer London high streets – I am more than happy to listen to.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Free Speech

David Kurten: To what extent do you support freedom of expression at Speaker’s Corner and at other public places in London?

Sadiq Khan: As a former human rights lawyer, I recognise that freedom of speech is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of any democratic society and is a basic right and one that must be cherished and jealously guarded for all of our citizens, regardless of faith, ethnicity, gender, background, sexuality or political orientation. Of course, there are sensible limits to freedom of speech, for good reason. People are not allowed to incite violence or racial or religious hatred, and I am sure everyone will agree with me that the laws we have in place around this are crucial for protecting the safety and security of Londoners, particularly minority communities.
For many decades Speaker’s Corner has famously served as a space where members of the public can come and exercise their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Indeed, the suffragettes regularly gathered at that very spot to articulate the case for gender equality and demand their right to vote. I am well aware of the historical importance of Speaker’s Corner and I am fully committed to keeping its traditions alive as a place where people can express themselves and their views, no matter who they are or what they stand for, as long as they do so peacefully and within the law.
By that same token, there are many other public spaces across London that exist as focal points for Londoners who wish to meet and engage in debate, discussion and dialogue. It is vital that this remains the case and that London continues to be open to people who want to speak their minds and express their views.
We know that when it comes to this issue the authorities can sometimes have a difficult job striking the right balance, whether it is policing protests and marches or ensuring safe elections and helping London stage global events. Police officers operate in incredibly complex and sensitive circumstances. I know that the Metropolitan Police Service [MPS] is alert to the nuances around policing these delicate areas and that it makes every effort to uphold the freedom of speech, whilst also ensuring that it is enforcing the law and complying with the specific regulations that may be in force in any given public space.

David Kurten: Good morning, Mr Mayor, and thank you for your answer. We have spoken about freedom of speech before, and particularly relating to the case of PastorOluwoleIlesanmi, who was arrested in Enfield. You have written to me about that. Obviously he was arrested and de-arrested and the police have made compensation. That was a high-profile case.
There has been another high-profile case in November [2019] at Speaker’s Corner, and you may be aware of the case of RolandParsons, another Christian street preacher, who has been attending Speaker’s Corner for about 20 years, peacefully saying what he has to say and putting up a sign to back up what he wants to say. On 10November[2019], the police asked him to take down a sign which said, “The blood of Christ”. He has had that sign up for many, many years, but suddenly, after 20 years, the police targeted him, asked for his name and address and asked him to remove that sign. I do not know why that was. I do not know why the people in Speaker’s Corner who were policing that did that, but what are your thoughts on that? Should that have happened, and was that reasonable and proportionate?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am not aware of the full details of that case. What I can do is look into it and write to the Assembly Member in relation to what I can ascertain from MOPAC and the MPS. I have been quite clear in my answer. I think Article 10 in the Human Rights Act [1998] is quite clear in relation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. There are obviously nuances involved in relation to the job of the police to make sure nobody is breaking the law. I do not know about the individual circumstances of the case. I will look into the case and write to the Assembly Member.
I am quite clear that one of the joys of living in a democracy is freedom of speech, having that debate, that discussion, sometimes heated, hopefully always courteous, and I think that is quite important in a democracy. We should cherish that.

David Kurten: Thank you for your answer. I appreciate you do not know the details of that specific case, as you say, but it just seems to me that one person who has been there for 20 years suddenly is asked to take down a sign, when other people who had signs were not asked to take them down. I appreciate you are going to write to me about that.

Sadiq Khan: All I would say, Chair, is I am grateful for the Assembly Member who raised a previous case, rightly so, and he will be aware the case was raised, the police looked into it, I think the officers have apologised, and actually I think the police accepted that, for that particular person, it was wrong for the police to arrest them and do what they did, which demonstrates, hopefully, that the system of checks and balances works. I am not saying that the police always get it right. It is really difficult. They often make split-second decisions. Complaints are made. By and large, I genuinely believe that we have the best police service in the world. It understands the challenges. Let me look into it, Chair, and I will write to the Assembly Member.

David Kurten: Great. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to raise another case which has also been quite high-profile and has received a lot of media attention. That is the case of ChristianHacking, who was another Christian. He prayed, engaged in prayer, outside the abortion clinic in Ealing where there is a so-called buffer zone, a public space protection order, which you supported 100% the setting-up of this buffer zone. When it was written, it went well beyond banning people speaking, to actually banning and criminalising prayer. It is astounding that there is an area of London where prayer is now a criminal activity and ChristianHacking was a person who was arrested by the police. Apparently, the procedure was not implemented properly, and then the case was dropped by the police. What are your thoughts on that? Should prayer be criminalised?

Sadiq Khan: I think, Chair, we have to be very careful in attributing established facts to a situation where the facts may not be established. What I am clear about is often vulnerable women who in my view should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies are being harassed by individuals in groups across our city. I do not want an Americanisation in relation to what has happened to the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies. If it is the case that there is a buffer zone with quite clear rules that are being breached by anybody, I think it is right that the police should enforce a breach of the buffer zone rules. I do not know about the facts of the case, and as somebody who himself prays, I would find it objectionable if somebody else is not allowed to pray or is criminalised. That is not saying anything about the facts of that case, which I just do not know about, but I think we have to be quite clear. There is a very good reason and a very sensible reason why the council supported those women and others in relation to this buffer zone. You are right, I fully support this buffer zone outside this clinic.

David Kurten: Mr Mayor, I do have a problem with you using the word “harassment”, because there are groups that are pro-life who have been protesting there for nearly 25 years, before the buffer zone was put into place. There has never been a single case of harassment, abuse or intimidation being brought, even though people have accused pro-life groups such as the Good Counsel and others of doing so. There was never any evidence that they engaged in harassment. Suddenly, this public space protection order has brought this in, and now I feel that it is a very, very draconian erosion of freedom of speech that has taken place in Ealing and other places.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, one of the joys of our democracy is that we are entitled to disagree. I would say this: one of the checks and balances we have is, before the order was issued, the courts looked at those sorts of arguments. Similarly, if the Assembly Member believes or the individual believes that his rights have been breached, he can challenge that through the courts, which again is one of the great things about living in a democracy. Without knowing the facts of the case, if that individual or the Assembly Member thinks they have been wronged, then it is open to them, obviously, to challenge this through the courts.

David Kurten: I would appreciate if you could look into that case. The arrest was actually wrongful. He was not given a caution before he was arrested, as far as I can see by looking into the facts of the case. If you would look into that and ensure that police follow proper procedures in that case --

Sadiq Khan: Chair, why don’t I agree to look into both of those cases raised by the Assembly Member? If there are any more facts, feel free to email my office and I will be happy to look into those.

David Kurten: OK. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Jennette Arnold: OK, thank you.

General election

Andrew Dismore: What are the likely implications for London of the outcome of the General Election?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I will work with the new Conservative Government and the new Minister for London, ChrisPhilp [MP], to ensure the best outcome for London and all Londoners. I have written to the Prime Minister to congratulate him on the election victory. In my letter I reiterated my commitment to engage with him and my fellow mayors across England in delivering a new devolution deal.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to at least partially reinstate the number of police officers lost across the country. The Government promised an Environment Bill and, given the challenges posed by London’s poor air quality and the climate emergency, this is a once-in-a-generation chance to safeguard and improve the health of Londoners, adopt tougher standards and ensure that Brexit does not erode our existing environmental protections. I will make this case to the Government.
It remains vital that the new Government works with us to invest in infrastructure to build the homes we need and keep the city moving. The Government needs to invest in critical new schemes such as the Bakerloo line extension and Crossrail2 that the Prime Minister supported when he was Mayor, which are urgently needed to support the capacity and growth of our capital and the wider southeast.
As you will be aware, the Government is setting out its new legislative agenda today, and I will study that carefully. I will also make the case for further investment in London ahead of the Budget and the expected Spending Review early this year.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that answer. Whilst other parts of the country voted for the Conservatives, this was not the case in London, which remains a Remain and Labour-voting city. Why do you think Londoners overwhelmingly reject the former Mayor of London’s Conservative Party manifesto?

Sadiq Khan: Many of us know more about him than the rest of the country, but it would be churlish for me not to accept that the Conservatives won and are the Government for the next five years. I believe that when somebody gets a new job or when you are the losing party, you congratulate the winner and you congratulate somebody who has a new job. I congratulate [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP]. He was elected the Prime Minister. He has a mandate.
My job as the Mayor is to put aside party differences when I can and work with the Government. Look, he has won and he is our Prime Minister. I think he understands the importance that London has to the country and I am sure he will not forget his experience of London as Mayor and our contribution to the country doing well.
We as a city need to be less arrogant because there is anti-London animus across the country. I have tried as Mayor in my last three and a half years to work with colleagues across the country and I am hoping [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP, Prime Minister] understands that it is a symbiotic relationship. We all need to do well.

Andrew Dismore: One of the key problems facing London is the question of immigration under the present Government. If it were to implement its threat to introduce an immigration system similar to Australia, what do you think would be the impact on life in London and on London’s economy?

Sadiq Khan: When I next meet [The Rt Hon] BorisJohnson [MP, Prime Minister], I will politely remind him that when he was Mayor he was in favour of an amnesty. He has gone from that to where he is now. The problem with the Australian points system is that we already have one in relation to non-European Union (EU) migrants. The issue is what happens from December2020 until the new system comes in. It is that period that is of real concern to London’s businesses, social care and the National Health Service (NHS) because we rely upon many EU citizens - more than 1million are Londoners - to work well with us. Some of those, by the way, are not in the most high-skilled, well-paid jobs: social care, hospitality, restaurants, construction. Although we are accelerating training up Londoners to have these skills for these jobs, there will still be a massive need for workers from overseas. My concern is, in the interests of trying to please one wing of his party, he does not understand the bigger picture. Our job, as Londoners who get it, is to remind him of why it is important to have a proper immigration policy.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

London’s crumbling hospitals

Onkar Sahota: The London Health Board’s health and care vision lists “estates” as one of the make or break factors behind better health care. What effect will the Government’s backtracking on its commitment to build 40 hospitals have on efforts to improve healthcare in London?

Sadiq Khan: London has some of the worst GP and hospital buildings in Britain and these facilities are compromising patient care. They are another example of underinvestment and neglect by successive Conservative Governments. It is not satisfactory to simply patch the roof up with scraps of money from the Government. We want to transform our health and care estate and ensure it works effectively for all our communities. That is why, as part of the devolution Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), we established the London Estates Board. We were clear: decisions about London should be taken in London for Londoners. We want to make our facilities world-class as well as find opportunities to build the homes Londoners need.
We now need the Government to use the Spending Review to devolve a multi-year capital settlement, but all we have had so far is empty promises. Take the announcement you mention in your question, made earlier this year, to build 40 new hospitals. That promise was broken before the end of the day. Any additional investment in the NHS is welcome and much needed. New facilities in Whipps Cross, St George’s in Hornchurch and improvements in Croydon are vital for these communities. The crumbling buildings at Epsom and St Helier must be dealt with. We estimate that at least £8billion in new investment is required in London alone over the next ten years.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for that answer. You know London has the largest backlog of hospital repairs anywhere in the country. Are you concerned that the hand-to-mouth existence of the NHS trusts is putting pressure on them to sell their land, which they can ill afford to do?

Sadiq Khan: I am. Objectively, if a trust has very little money and if the buildings it is using need massive modernisation, you can understand why it would sell off an asset to the highest bidder to try to improve the service it provides, but to me it does not make sense for the taxpayer, whether it is Government, City Hall or councils, to allow that to happen. That is an asset we could use to, for example, provide affordable homes that the workers in the hospital need, which affects retention. Also, if you properly funded the NHS, decisions would be based upon important clinical reasons rather than to raise maximum buck to invest in the NHS. That is why it is important to have a joined-up long-term approach and that is why the London Estates Board is part of the solution and the MoU is part of the solution. We need long-term capital investment in the NHS over ten years but also guaranteed revenue expenditure going forward as well.

Onkar Sahota: Of course there is a hospital in Hillingdon, which happens to be in my constituency and also that of the Prime Minister. This has the second-largest bill for repairs in the country, something like £107million, and they have been given an emergency loan of £16.5million. The residents are concerned that the idea that hospitals will be built, 40 hospitals will be built, is just propaganda by the Government.

Sadiq Khan: This is clearly just seed funding and what you need is serious funding. Now the election is out of the way I am hoping the Health Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will realise we need massive investment in the NHS, not just the estate but also in its people. You know as well as I do there are record numbers of vacancies in the NHS in London. Lying about the number of new nurses and lying about the number of new hospitals does not help anybody. It is important that the Government gets serious about the investment Hillingdon needs but also the NHS generally across London, and indeed across the country.

Onkar Sahota: Yes. Of course I know that money has been given for the Epsom and St Helier Hospital development but of course residents are concerned whether this will lead to a net loss of beds and a net loss of services. Will you be applying your six tests to this scheme? When you have applied them, will you let me know what your findings are, please?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Chair, why do I not agree to ensure that my health advisor speaks to Dr Sahota? It is really important that the six tests that I set out as a result of the independent report are used when it comes to these sorts of decisions. Let us work together to make sure the right decision is made, using objective criteria based on expert advice.

Onkar Sahota: Agreed. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. An apology first regarding the typographical error in the next question, Mr Mayor. This is on detection rates. The figure quoted in this question says 18.7%. The correct figure should be 19.35%.

Public London Charter

Nicky Gavron: It is great that the new Public London Charter will be embedded in your new London Plan. Could you update us on how it is being drawn up and when we can expect it to be published?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. London has an amazing network of public space. It is part of what makes our city so special. It shapes the way our city looks and has a profound impact on how and where we meet, walk, exercise, play, shop, eat and socialise. The public realm has a key role to play in achieving good growth, bringing people together, promoting social integration and creating a healthier, more liveable city. That is why my new London Plan states that whether publicly or privately owned, all new public spaces should be open, free to use and offer the highest level of public access.
As outlined in the London Plan, the Public London Charter as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) will set out principles for the management of new public spaces. This will ensure that they are an inclusive place that all Londoners can enjoy and that any rules or restrictions are only those that are essential for the safe management of the space.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that answer. The London Assembly is very interested in this Public London Charter because we passed a motion unanimously backing it, because we are concerned about the lack of access to many privately developed, owned and managed public spaces. It is very good, the definition that is given of public space that is given in the London Plan. It is very extensive, going from pathways to waterways, alleys, streets, squares and all kinds of civic spaces, and these are Londoners’ outdoor living rooms. They really are critically important as we make the city denser and as the population increases.
You have emphasised that inclusive growth and access is crucial. I am just wondering, as it is not absolutely clear to me how we are going to make sure that all the users of public space are involved in framing, and the detail, of your Public London Charter. It is a very important SPG because it will flesh out what is in the London Plan and the London Plan will be bound by what is in the SPG. I would like you to just explain, because we know that certain groups do not feel welcome. There are barriers to access. I would highlight old people, teenagers and people with disabilities. I am finding it very hard now to navigate public space. How are you planning to make sure that we get the broadest number of users feeding into the consultation?

Sadiq Khan: Thanks for your question. To give you an example of how important your question is, we know, for example, that a large number of children in Lambeth find it quite scary and intimidating to go to the South Bank. That is quite a welcoming space where the public realm is open. We have to think about the public realm and make sure we do not allow, because it owned by private companies, them to stop members of the public being able to access that.
What we are doing, just to reassure you, is making sure that when it comes to devising the Charter, we have proper research and consultation with the diversity that is London – older people; people with disabilities, some visible and some invisible; minorities; poorer Londoners – to make sure we get it right, including developers, by the way. They should be part and parcel of the consultation taking place.
We will make sure that the Charter is informed by several rounds of research and consultation, taking into account the needs of different groups of Londoners and how they use public space. You mentioned young people. One of the things I am keen to avoid is demonising an entire generation, assuming they are all criminals and bad people, when they need places to play or skateboard or whatever they want to do. It is really important we think about this and that is why there will be several rounds of research and consultation to make sure we get it right.

Nicky Gavron: I am very pleased with that answer because I think it is so important that we get the broadest group of users involved.
Just one other thing. Parks, which are controlled mainly by local authorities unless they are rural parks, have a much more permissive approach to the regulating of who can use a space and the activities that happen on them. It seems to me that there is something to learn here. Could we not, in your new Public London Charter, think about ways local authorities could adopt privately developed, owned and hitherto managed public space, your new public spaces, under the Highways Act? That would allow them to control access to the space and also to guarantee access in perpetuity. That is a new idea.

Sadiq Khan: In an ideal world, yes, and I think in previous decades they would have said yes. The concern they would have is the liabilities and the financial cost of taking on the responsibility. One of the reasons why –

Nicky Gavron: Could you not get the developers to –

Sadiq Khan: Yes and no.

Nicky Gavron: A contract?

Sadiq Khan: Yes and no. In perpetuity, maybe not, but you could have an arrangement where a council agrees with the developer to look after a piece of public realm, although owned by a private company. One of the things we are trying to do is encourage developers, for example, not to put up gates which stop someone feeling welcome to a piece of the public realm. In some of the developments that I have approved, that come to me, we have made sure that a piece of park that is used for residents is open, there are no gates and it can be used by others as well. There are things we can do in the granting of permission, active frontages being an example. I am happy to have conversations on a case-by-case basis with councils.
Just to emphasise the point, councils are very nervous taking on additional obligations at a time when they have lost 60% of their revenues, receipts and grants over the last nine years.

Nicky Gavron: Yes, but there could be a way that it is finessed, I think. There could be a way. It is a recommendation that comes out of the Centre for London report.

Sadiq Khan: The research, yes. One of the reasons, Chair, we commissioned the Centre for London is because we wanted to think outside the box, and so any ideas are gratefully received. I am more than happy to look into them.

Nicky Gavron: Right. Thank you.

Renters’ rights and ending no fault evictions

Siân Berry: How soon can we get the Government to finish abolishing section 21?

The Mayor: Caroline Russell AM (on behalf of Siân Berry AM)

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Now that a new Government is in place I see no reason for them to delay this any further. Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act, which enables no fault evictions, is a major source of worry for the 2.4million Londoners living in the private rented sector. It should be scrapped as soon as possible. The constant threat of this type of eviction means that London’s private renters, including a growing number of families with children, struggle to plan their lives. Many are also scared to complain about poor standards or unfair rent increases for fear of retaliatory eviction. At the sharpest end, section21 is responsible for forcing many of London’s families into homelessness.
I have been campaigning with renters’ organisations and housing charities for section21 to be scrapped. In July[2019] I published my blueprint for reform of the private rented sector, calling for this and the introduction of open-ended tenancies, alongside a package of measures to improve renters’ rights and reduce the cost of rent in London. The last Government finally committed to ending section21 but it is clear that this commitment has not been put into action and its proposal falls far short of the wholesale reforms needed to protect Londoners who rent.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Obviously we agree that renters need much more protection and that section21 should be abolished. In fact, the Assembly agreed Siân’s[Berry AM] motion on it in July 2018. I am concerned that the most recent Queen’s Speech did not mention the Housing Bill despite the Government having run a consultation on abolishing section21 and it being in the Conservative manifesto. We are obviously due another Queen’s Speech today but we are worried that the Government may not make it a priority again. Will you meet with the new Ministers to raise abolishing section21 as a matter of urgency?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for the question. This is a good example – the Chair alluded to this – of us working closely together on an issue that affects all Londoners. It is a good example of cross-party work. Yes, of course I will do that. I have already, in my letter to the Minister, mentioned the issue of the private rental market and it is really important we address this as soon as possible.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. I am also worried because the Government just does not understand the reality of renting and we saw just how out of touch they are during the election campaign. At a hustings organised by Shelter, the panel were asked how they defined an affordable rent. Housing Minister LukeHall [MP] said it was 50% of income and that is clearly not affordable. The rest of the panel agreed with Siân that the maximum should be 30% of take-home pay. This is the message that we are getting, 50%, from a Minister in the MHCLG, so clearly we cannot rely on Government to get rents under control. When you meet with Ministers, will you also ask for rent control powers for London?

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, I think even the Green Party should give this Labour Mayor some credit for ditching the dodgy definition of an affordable home that the previous Mayor had. It was not 50%, it was 80% of market value for rent and a home to buy costing £450,000. We have ditched that dodgy definition and we have three definitions: a council home, a home where you pay a third of average local earnings, or shared ownership, part-buy, part-rent. The good news is that the Government has accepted that, in relation to a definition to use for the agreement we have with Government. There is some evidence that we can work with the Government to understand London’s needs and I am optimistic that the new Government team - it is the same one - will work with us to make sure we address this issue.
Caroline Russell AM: My question was: will you ask for rent control powers for London?

Sadiq Khan: I beg your pardon. In my answer, I said - I tried to cut it short - my blueprint included devolving rent control to London.

Caroline Russell: OK. Thank you very much. It looks like we have a fight on our hands but maybe we can make it work.

Jennette Arnold: I love the optimism.

Homelessness in London

Tom Copley: Has the Government done enough over the past nine years to combat rough sleeping in London, which has more than doubled in London in the past decade, according to data from the Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN)?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The shocking rise in rough sleeping over the last decade is a national disgrace and largely a result of Government policies including massive cuts to our welfare system and public services. These policies have forced more people into homelessness and have provided fewer opportunities for those already sleeping rough to come off our streets.
I have set out in my Rough Sleeping Plan of Action the investment and measures needed from the Government to end rough sleeping, but since it was published last year the Government has given us just £43million, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £570million we need.
At City Hall we are doing all we can to help people off the streets with a huge expansion over the last three years in our Life Off the Streets programme. When I came into office, emergency winter shelters opened only when three consecutive days of freezing temperatures were forecast. I took action and changed that and so shelters are now open on any day when temperatures fall to or below zero. This year we will be going even further. We will be opening shelters continuously until at least the end of February [2020]. I want councils and charities to do the same and, in partnership with boroughs and providers, we will be providing over 300 additional bed spaces in the coldest months of the year. These extra services over winter will be a lifeline and will support those I have already expanded to operate all year round. This includes a rapid response team to get help to people on the streets faster.
As a result of the extra funding I have agreed and money we have secured from the Government, City Hall’s rough sleeping budget this year will be more than double the £8.5million it was when I came into office. Last year our services helped more people than ever before and we anticipate will support even bigger numbers this year. However, the reality is we will never end rough sleeping unless the Government steps up and makes the reforms and investment needed.

Tom Copley: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor, and for highlighting the work that City Hall is doing to tackle the tragic rise in rough sleeping and homelessness.
I want to make another suggestion for something that City Hall and TfL could do to help homeless people. I am sure you are aware of Proxy Address, a new service which it is hoped will link people who are homeless to a permanent address, which will help them to sign up for bank accounts and access services that require you to have a fixed address. I am very proud and pleased that Lewisham Council is partnering with Proxy Address to launch a pilot before it, hopefully, rolls out across London.
As well as lacking an address, one of the biggest challenges facing those at risk of homelessness is travelling to the myriad appointments and interviews required to access vital services and bring more stability to their lives. Would you consider working with Proxy Address, Lewisham and TfL to give free travel to those using Proxy Address to make this aspect of their life that bit easier?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question and thank you for raising this. I know the work you do in this area.
I would be more than happy to look into this. TfL already does, at its discretion, give bespoke arrangements to people who need help. I suggest, Chair, through you, that AssemblyMemberCopley meets with HeidiAlexander [Deputy Mayor for Transport] and the right person in TfL to make sure we can get the help directly to the people who need it.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much for that answer, MrMayor, and I look forward to meeting with Heidi.
Of course, the latest data from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) shows that nearly 90,000 children in London will be living in temporary accommodation and, very tragically, waking up homeless in London on Christmas Day. Londoners are of course shocked to see the horribly visible impact of austerity on our streets with rising street homelessness. Then, as the London Assembly estimates, 13 times the number of people who are homeless on the streets are hidden homeless as well.
You have highlighted the work that you are doing. London boroughs are doing excellent work through schemes like Capital Letters in order to try to bear down on the cost of temporary accommodation. However, is the crux of this issue that we need to end the austerity when it comes to welfare cuts and caps and then the insecurity of the private rented sector, given that the end of a private tenancy is a leading cause of homelessness now?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Councils are working incredibly hard. Londoners are so generous in relation to using Street Legal and also giving donations. We are doing what we can. Charities are doing what they can. We are dealing with the consequences at the end of the pipeline. We are helping record numbers of people sleeping rough.
What are the causes? The causes are welfare benefit changes, the Universal Credit rollout, not enough affordable homes being built and provided for, the private rental market, section21 – a big issue – and cuts in health and social care. What we need to do is deal with the causes of people being rough sleepers in the first place.
We should be hopeful because recent history tells us that in the 1990s there was a Government committed to helping City Hall, councils and charities and we ended for a few years rough sleeping in London. We made real progress on homelessness. If there is a willingness on the part of the Government to work with us, we can address this issue. As I said, new Conservative Ministers do not go to bed thinking, “Let me see how many more people I can make sleep rough tomorrow or how many more people I can make homeless tomorrow”. It is a consequence of policy and we can work with them to try to solve both the causes and the consequences of those sleeping rough.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much, MrMayor.

ULEZ Exemptions

Keith Prince: What exemptions have you considered for the ULEZ?

Keith Prince: MrMayor, before you start, if I can just cut to the quick on this one - and I want to work with you on this one - it is really about specialist recovery vehicles, MrMayor. You know that you have show vehicles that you have given an exemption to. These recovery vehicles that cost £300,000 to £500,000 do not have an exemption. I wonder whether you would consider giving them an exemption. I am quite happy to meet with you or the Deputy Mayor [for Transport] to go through it in detail.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I just say? AssemblyMemberPrince deserves huge credit. He organised and facilitated a meeting for me to meet the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG). That meeting led to your suggestion and the MAG’s suggestion of us looking at exemptions for those motorbikes that were not Euro3. You will be pleased to know that as a result of that meeting there are hundreds of motorbikes that have now been exempted because of the testing system we discussed.
Chair, I am more than happy to facilitate a meeting between either me or the Deputy Mayor [for Transport] and AssemblyMemberPrince. I have found it is often sensible to meet with him offline to discuss these things because often we can work together and sometimes alleviate some of the problems that are generated through no ill will, and so I am more than happy to sort that out.

Keith Prince: Great. The other thing I would like to ask, MrMayor, is: can you give some consideration as to how we can approach whichever authority it is - it could be the Port of London Authority (PLA) - or how we can do something around marine engine emissions?

Sadiq Khan: This is a big issue, Chair. I am frustrated about the lack of control over the River Thames. You will have seen the report recently. A lot of the pollution in the river is caused by vehicles on the streets.
The good news is that DeputyMayor [for Transport] HeidiAlexander - started by ValShawcross [CBE, former Deputy Mayor for Transport] - has probably the best relationship City Hall has had with the PLA since we were set up. It is really good. We are working collegiately with them.
Again, what I am happy to do is for Heidi to speak to Keith offline to discuss what we are doing. Also, his assistance may help because the good news is there are lots of willing partners. It is not the case that they are saying, “This is our river”. They want to work with us to address this issue. The technology is there. We can sort this out.

Keith Prince: While we are paying compliments to each other, can I thank you and the Deputy Mayor [for Transport] for the help you are giving us around Gallows Corner? I think we are going to get somewhere with that as well.

Jennette Arnold: I will just thank you, AssemblyMemberPrince, for that demonstration of how scrutiny at its best delivers success for Londoners.

Brexit and Businesses

Leonie Cooper: What impact has the continued Brexit uncertainty had on London’s businesses?

Sadiq Khan: Parliament looks set to approve the UK withdrawal agreement and the UK will leave the EU on 31January2020, but this will do nothing to reduce uncertainty for our businesses and anxiety for Londoners. The Prime Minister’s decision to rule out extending the transition period shows that this Government is willing to jeopardise people’s livelihoods. Rather than do-or-die pledges, businesses need confidence and certainty that they will continue to be able to trade freely across Europe.
The Prime Minister has said he will negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, end freedom of movement and introduce a new points-based immigration system, all before 31December2020, but as yet we have no clue as to how any of this will work in practice. By ruling out sensible options like Single Market and Customs Union membership, we face the prospect of leaving with no deal or a very poor free trade agreement at best on 31December2020.
A report by GLA Economics published in October [2019] confirmed the huge risk Brexit poses to London and outlines the effects on London’s businesses, workforce and households. UK economic and productivity growth are both close to zero. Uncertainty around Brexit has deterred many businesses from investing since the referendum. New business starts have fallen while closures have increased. The decline in the new start-up rate is stark, from 6.4% in 2016 to just 3.1% in 2018. We are going to carry on providing advice and support to London’s businesses and residents throughout the next period, both ahead of Brexit and after 31January [2020], to EU Londoners and Brexit business resource hubs. We await more detailed plans and I will look at those in close detail but I will continue to fight for a Brexit deal that retains the closest alignment with the EU and protects the rights of EU Londoners.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you for that. That has covered a number of the areas that I want to ask further about. We are clearly at the end of the beginning rather than at the beginning of the end of this process. The withdrawal agreement, I assume, is now going to go through Parliament pretty damn quickly but, even once that is through, as you quite correctly point out, there are certain things that have come out of the withdrawal agreement and have gone into the political statement which I am concerned about, concerning workers’ rights and environmental protections. Of course, the Prime Minister is now saying we cannot extend the transition period that is going to come in from the end of January [2020], which is a worry. Is it really possible for us to negotiate many of the things that you have just touched on in such a short period of time?

Sadiq Khan: I do not think so, but I reply upon experts and so I am not sure what the Prime Minister thinks.
You have actually articulated the problem really well. We are going to leave the EU on 31January [2020], but we have only 11 months to work out our future relationship with the EU. Now, it is possible to do a deal, I suppose, in 11 months if you have almost the same alignment with the EU as you have now. The closer the alignment, the easier the deal for the EU. However, what the Prime Minister wants to do is to diverge and move away from EU alignment and so I am unclear how he will reach a deal with the EU in 11 months.
Here is the concern. The Prime Minister wants to legislate that there are no more extensions at the end of the transition and so, in December 2020, one of three things will happen. One is virtually impossible, we do a good deal with the EU, or, two, we have a loose free trade agreement with the EU or, three, we leave without any deal whatsoever. Now, bearing in mind who the current President of the United States of America (USA) is, the idea that on 1January2021 he will suddenly have a great deal done with the USA is unrealistic. I worry about the consequences of this posturing from the Prime Minister.

Léonie Cooper: The report that came out from the GLA Economics unit, right at the end of October [2019], just before the General Election was finally called, found that already the UK economy is 3% smaller than it would have been if Brexit had not happened. We have had this extended period of real uncertainty going on. Also, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is saying - and that is the Government’s body - that Brexit is likely to leave everyone £1,000 worse off.
We have been worrying about the high street. If all Londoners are that much worse off, what is the impact going to be on the economy of London?

Sadiq Khan: What we do know is that we have huge strength as a city but, despite the underlying strengths, our economy has not grown as it should have done. You can do two lines, one like that and one like this, and we are like this. This before we have actually left the EU, let alone before we have got to the other end of December2020.
Our economies are linked. If parts of the economy struggle, other parts can be affected. The good news in London is that we have lots of different sectors - from finance to life sciences to higher education to culture - but if we have a bad exit from the EU, if we do not do a good deal with the EU, all the sectors are affected. A low pound has an impact in relation to what happens in relation to imports. The cost of things goes up. Clearly, if there are fewer EU Londoners doing the work we need, that leads to record vacancies in the NHS and social care. Hospitality, restaurants and hotels are worried. Our ability to fight crime [will be affected]. Some of the deals we have with the EU now will be gone in December2020 unless a good deal is done.
It is not just the environment, as you mentioned, and workers’ rights. There are a whole host of issues that need to be resolved in record time.

Léonie Cooper: Do you think the Government should publish its own economic impacts of the Brexit deal that it wants to negotiate?

Sadiq Khan: It would lead to transparency. It would lead to us knowing what is going on because after January [2020] - and [Dr] FionaTwycross [AM, Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience] has done a great job chairing the Resilience Forum - we will have to start working again towards being ready for the possibility of either no deal in December2020 or a free trade agreement that does not have its own connections. The more information we have, the better job we can do at City Hall at getting Londoners - whether it is businesses, whether it is the NHS, whether it is councils, whether it is the ports - ready. That is why maximum transparency leads to plans being able to be made to mitigate the worst excesses.

Léonie Cooper: I agree, MrMayor. Maximum transparency will help City Hall prepare. Thank you, Chair.

London Bridge attack

Len Duvall: What steps are you taking to make sure we defeat the hatred seen in the London Bridge attack by rejecting division and instead focusing on the values that bind us together?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I want to start, as we did at the beginning of this meeting, by remembering the two young people who were clearly remarkable people, JackMerritt and SaskiaJones, who were killed in this horrific terrorist attack.
What happened that day demonstrated both the very best of humanity, as I have said, and the very worst. As I have said, on the one hand, we should be so proud of the brave men and women who rushed into danger to protect others, without a thought for their own lives. They truly are the best of us. On the other hand, we saw a man, previously convicted of terrorism but sickeningly unrepentant, attacking innocent people.
Terrorists like this target London because they hate the fact our diversity is a beacon of hope and inclusive values. That is why they commit these terrible acts: to attack the shared values that bind us together, and to try to sow fear, hatred and division in our city. They have tried this before in our city, but they have never succeeded and they never will. London will not be intimidated or cowed by terrorism, as it will always remain united and open.
I say this, though, Chair. We cannot be complacent. This means not just coming together to promote our shared values in the aftermath of tragedy but promoting them all the time. That is why at City Hall we are constantly promoting and celebrating our diversity and open values. That is why we are investing in programmes to encourage greater social integration and to bring Londoners together as much as possible, and it is why, though our Countering Violent Extremism projects, we are working to strengthen communities against extremism, encouraging people to stand up to extremists, safeguarding vulnerable Londoners from radicalisation, and stopping the spread of extremist ideologies.

Len Duvall: Thank you very much, and I think around this table we would echo those sentiments in terms of the praise for those that were there in that immediate vicinity and the action they took, both emergency services and ordinary people.
Can I just say that there are a number of lessons to learn? Sometimes they are judgment calls. No one can actually minimise some of these attacks. We try to. We try to, but sometimes they will be successful for those who want to peddle their hatred, as it is pure hatred, and attack our values. Do you think there is more that we can do both at Government, regional and local government level to signpost about where people can give and provide information about their suspicions? We are now dealing with a number of terrorists, haters, ultras, call them what you like, across the spectrum, from right wing to those who want to attack the values of this country and promote a certain form of religion around those. Do you not think we just need to keep repeating and reminding people first to be vigilant about the issues that you say, but also saying, “If you’ve got information, this is where you can go to”? It is not just on these crimes. The whole issue we face on crime, whether it is organised crime or issues of slavery, is of people just constantly being reminded that there are places where they can go and report suspicion of illegal activity.

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, thank you for what you said in your question. You will know this, but just to remind colleagues around the room and Londoners, in the 1980s when our way of life and our Government was under sustained attack from terrorists, the phrase used by the terrorists was - I am paraphrasing - “You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once”. You are right to remind us in relation to the importance for us to be vigilant and never complacent.
One of the things that we did last year was survey Londoners about whether they were aware where to report people they were suspicious of, and the answer was, “Not really”. One of the things that SophieLinden as my Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime] does is chair something called [London] CONTEST [Board], which is where she brings together key players from all different groups - the Counterterrorism Team, police and others - and they work together to address this issue, which is challenging and contesting those with dodgy views, but also the policing side of it as well.
The police have a counterterror hotline you can ring up anonymously. You can just Google what the counterterror hotline is. It is an 0800 number. There is a step below that, where somebody is not quite at the stage of committing an act of criminality but they clearly have views that are very, very extreme. That is the concern that the police have, because the police cannot really be dealing with that sort of stuff unless there are criminal acts. We were discussing with Assembly Member Kurten the fine line between the job the police have of nuances.
I think we have a role to play as politicians. Schools have a role to play. Councils have a role to play. Civil society has a role to play. That is why one of the things we are funding is giving communities the confidence to tackle extremists and also encouraging people to stand up to extremists. Not the police, members of the community. You will be aware from your long work in anti-racist groups that that applies across the piece. There is much more we can do at City Hall. We are doing a lot. There is much more the Government can do.
What I would say in the final point is, I think members of the public have a role to play as well in challenging hatred and challenging those who want to divide our communities.

Len Duvall: Thank you. Lastly, Chair and Mr Mayor, would you praise some of the work post the incident? I think for the first time our victim support services were there, highly trained, skilled and providing some of that aftercare support for people who either witnessed or were potential victims to this crime. I think it was one of our ex-colleagues, a Conservative colleague, who led the scrutiny of what happens post incident with issues that we have been raising that we need to get better at. I think it is MOPAC money that supported that. I think we just need to highlight it and make people aware that it is a service that is available to victims in these outrageous attacks.

Sadiq Khan: Could I echo that, Chair, and just say one final thing? The Government deserves credit for devolving to us the funding for these services, and I think this is a good example of where devolution works. You are right, there has been an improvement in the service provided post a terror attack, and that is because it was devolved to us by the Government. They trusted us, and I think we have shown we can improve the service.

Len Duvall: Thank you.

Knife Crime

Shaun Bailey: What are you doing to get knives off the streets of London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this question. The main ways to get knives off our streets in London are enforcement, taking the knives away from those currently intent on carrying them, and prevention, stopping people from carrying knives in the first place.
Since I became Mayor, we have invested record amounts in policing from City Hall against a backdrop of record cuts from the Government. This has funded a new, dedicated Violent Crime Task Force with nearly 300 dedicated police officers focused on the areas worst affected by violent crime. Since the Task Force was first launched in April2018, it has carried out 12,323 weapon sweeps, recovered 1,367 knives and 906 offensive weapons, and arrested 7,739 suspects. Over the same period, wider activity across the MPS has seen 60,812 weapon sweeps and 4,448 knives recovered, along with 2,137 offensive weapons. This is a huge number of knives taken off our streets.
We are also working with retailers, Trading Standards and the police, and have launched a responsible retailers toolkit for businesses. This is educating them on their legal responsibilities. However, much more needs to be done to regulate online retailers and we continue to lobby the Home Office.
We are also supporting schools to safeguard their students and this includes providing knife wands, with more than 300 now in schools, and increasing the number of safer schools officers across the capital. There are currently 25 knife bins in London supported by the MPS, who are looking to find trusted partners in order to increase the number of bins deployed in London. Initiatives such as knife bins and amnesties are not solutions in themselves as everyone has knives in their homes, but they are useful as part of a wider package of measures.
Vitally, this includes focusing on tackling the complex root causes of crime, which can help us prevent people from deciding to carry knives in the first place. In London we have established a new VRU, England’s first. This is bringing the police together with local councils, the NHS, community groups and others to work on a shared approach to preventing people from turning to violent crime.
Over the last 12 months there have been reductions in the number of under-25s injured through knife crime but it is still far too high and too many people are losing their lives. Every single life lost to knife crime is an utter tragedy and I can assure Londoners that tackling violent crime in London, including knife crime, will continue to be my top priority.

Shaun Bailey: Thank you, MrMayor. Thank you for your answer. Just before I continue, can I bring to your attention Online Watch Link (OWL)? I am not trying to score any points here. I just want to make a point. OWL is a fantastic community organisation that works across ten boroughs across London. It is effectively an app that allows people to do neighbourhood watch on a huge industrial scale. Recently it has been involved in helping to solve a murder through the alerts that it can send out. OWL contacted MOPAC some time ago to secure some funding. MOPAC agreed to fund it until March to keep it going. Part of that conversation was, if it does not receive the funding in time, it will be gone by Christmas. MOPAC agreed to this but has not provided the funding.
I just wonder if I could encourage you to give MOPAC an almighty shove to help this happen because, if they do not, OWL will go under by Christmas. The point here is that they have already agreed to the funding and so that conversation has been had. It is just that the payment of the funding would be very useful at this point.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for raising that. Chair, can I just ask the AssemblyMember to just email my office and I will look into that this afternoon?

Shaun Bailey: Thank you. I will do that. Thank you very much. Now back to the question. Has your Knife Crime Strategy been successful?

Sadiq Khan: We are starting to make progress. What we have seen over the last 12 months is a reduction in knife crime injuries for under-25s in the context of it going up across the country, and a reduction of 30% of those under-25s who have been injured in knife crime. We have seen in relation to knife crime generally, whereas across the country the ONS says it has gone up by 13%, in London it has gone up by 0.7%, which is in numerical terms negligible, still too much though. We are starting to see some evidence of decreases. It is not good enough, though. We need to see much more reduction.
One of the things that the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] is focusing on in relation to the new recruits coming through is how we can use them to address the issue of reducing violent crime at the same time, as I said in my answer, as dealing with the causes. The best way to reduce violent crime is to stop it occurring in the first place and so enforcement is important. Of course it is. We want to stop it occurring in the first place as well. You are seeing now some of the work that the VRU is doing.
For example, we know that the time of day when there is the largest amount of serious youth violence is between 3.00pm and 8.00pm. Many after-school clubs are closed and youth centres have closed down and there is nothing for young people to do. The VRU is investing in facilities for young people to be kept busy between 3.00pm and 8.00pm.
You will also be aware of the big concern about exclusions and link between children being excluded and getting involved in criminal gangs. The VRU is working with schools now so that there are steps before a child is excluded.
We are doing lots of work across a number of different areas and I am hoping to see progress faster but also deeper as well.

Shaun Bailey: How are you tracking this work of the VRU? The obvious question is whether it has been a success, but how many lives have been saved? How many hours have young people been engaged where they would not have been engaged before?

Sadiq Khan: There are a number of metrics the VRU is using and of course you more than welcome to meet with the head of the VRU to discuss some of these. I will give you some examples of metrics that we have used.
One of the things I did, against opposition from your group, was to agree to a Young Londoners Fund of £45million. Thankfully, the rest of the Assembly voted for that. What that has led to already is more than £20million that we can assess that went out the door and is reaching more than 73,000 young people who, but for this money, would not be receiving any support to do youth work across London. That is 73,000 young people being kept busy.
Another example of the metrics is during school holidays. You will be aware that during school holidays there can be a massive increase - for reasons we understand - of violent crime amongst young people. We are keeping young people busy and we can give metrics for the number of young people using these facilities as well.
The other key metric that the police are quite keen to use, for reasons that you will appreciate, is what happens to under-25s in relation to not just homicides but knife injuries. It is not good enough, but the number of homicides of under-25s has gone down over the last year and also knife injuries are going down.
Another metric is the amount of young people that the youth workers that we pay for in accident and emergency (A&E) and trauma centres managed to help during that so-called ‘reachable’ or ‘teachable’ moment. One of the things that we know is that often a young person will go to a GP or an A&E with a less serious injury and then go back again a few weeks later and again a few weeks later and it becomes more serious as time goes on, ultimately, unfortunately, leading to a homicide. Question: the first time that young person goes into A&E, can we turn them around and work out what it is that is leading to them being a victim of knife crime?
Here is the really heart-breaking statistic. When the police arrest somebody for a homicide, 72% - I may have the figure a bit wrong - of those arrested for murder or manslaughter themselves were victims of a knife crime. That is why there are a number of different things we are doing to try to address the issue of both the causes of violent crime and also the consequences as well.

Shaun Bailey: When I spoke about this subject with you earlier on, we talked about the VRU and that you did not have a plan for it. The tactics and statistics you have talked about now all sound very good but we are in a record year of homicides. Are you comfortable with the performance of the VRU? Are you comfortable with your own performance? Last year we had a record amount of homicides. This year we have had another record year of homicides and we have had over 15,000 knife crimes. Are you comfortable with what you are doing?

Sadiq Khan: Every death on the streets of London is a tragedy and I meet many families who will never come to terms with their grief.
There is some good news, which is that the Government finally - and I have been saying for more than three and a half years, with opposition coming from there - realises that cuts have consequences. [Former] Prime Minister DavidCameron and [former] Prime Minister TheresaMay did not agree with me and nor did the Assembly on that side of the room. Finally, now we have a Prime Minister who agrees that cuts have consequences to the extent that he is now partially reinstating the record number of officers cut.
That by itself will not solve this issue. Yes, we need to reverse the cuts made over the last nine years in police officers. We also need to reverse the cuts made in relation to youth services. We need to make sure we have smaller class sizes. We need to help schools have fewer exclusions. We need to make sure we help Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). Many PRUs do a fantastic job on alternative provisions, but many of them are overstretched and under-resourced like our police and so we have to help them as well. One of things I will be saying to [The Rt Hon] GavinWilliamson [CBE, MP], Secretary of State for Education, is that we need to support our schools to make sure young people are equipped to reject those who invite them to join criminal gangs.

Shaun Bailey: MrMayor, that broader picture is correct but there are things that you are responsible for. You were slow to start the VRU, very slow, and we are seeing the impact of that now. It has been an absolute failure to deal with the pressure on the street.
I spoke to a young man yesterday called Ian who said to me he is absolutely terrified to the point where he is considering carrying a knife. He asked me to ask you what you are going to change. Talking about all the money you have spent - which, by the way, came from the Government and the VRU has a lot of money in it - still does not cover the fact that you have failed spectacularly to make the streets of London safe. We have had two record years in a row for homicides. What are you going to change materially to make our communities safe in London?

Sadiq Khan: Let me deal with that and hopefully I get as much time to answer the question as the questioner had in asking the question.
Serious youth violence in London started going up in 2012. Violent crime in London, like in the rest of the country, began going up in 2014. Since I have been Mayor, one of the things I have been trying to explain is that most of our budget comes from central Government, about 80%. We have had massive cuts, though, over the last nine years, losing more than £800million. That has had an impact on police officer numbers‑‑

Shaun Bailey: MrMayor, we know all this. It is not about those cuts. It is about what you have been doing.

Jennette Arnold: AssemblyMemberBailey, you will allow the Mayor to finish his answer, please.

Sadiq Khan: It is not just about fewer police officers or fewer community support officers or fewer police staff, but we have also received massive cuts in our education system in relation to what is happening in schools and in youth services, which leads to young people often thinking that the best way to have a sense of belonging is to join a criminal gang and the best way to feel safe is to pick up a knife.
We are dealing with a situation where we need a public health approach. One of the things I have been advocating for and we now have in London, supported by the Government, which is very important, is a public health approach. We will not solve violent crime just by policing. It needs to have a public health approach by the police, social services, local authorities, education, probation, civic society, the faith community, parents and politicians. I am really pleased we now have that approach in London.

Shaun Bailey: MrMayor, we know all that but we are concentrating what you are in charge of. There are two things that you have failed to take responsibility for from the beginning. You continue blaming it on everybody else and what we want to know is what you are going to do. You are responsible for the safety of London, nobody else, and you have failed to do it. That is enough from me, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: I have just explained, Chair, that one of the things that I have done is convene the VRU‑‑

Shaun Bailey: Please stop him because he‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No, that was a question. You will get an answer.

Shaun Bailey: He spoke at great length in order to use our time up.

Jennette Arnold: No, I am sorry. It is for Members to understand whether or not they are making a comment‑‑

Shaun Bailey: It is not for the Mayor to waste our time and he knows that. He has been wasting our time as well as London’s time.

Jennette Arnold: No. If you put a question, you are going to get an answer. Can I have an answer‑‑

Shaun Bailey: That is none of my business. I have to deal with this Mayor, who has done absolutely nothing to keep our community safe and is standing in the Chamber now and wasting all our time. Answer the questions or do not, but do not wander me through hundreds of years of history that I already know.

Jennette Arnold: Excuse me. You are only delaying the inevitable. MrMayor, I will have an answer to the questions that were posed in whatever he said.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, what I would say to the AssemblyMember is: imagine if Ian was watching your behaviour now and what he would think. I hope Ian and those who have been victims of crime and bereaved families will understand that I want to work with the Conservatives to solve this problem. That includes the Government and Members of the Assembly. I am just really sorry that they would rather play political games with such an important issue.

Shaun Bailey: When you talk about political games, let us talk about the fact that you have not taken responsibility for this. You continually blame other people. You have talked to us about the rest of the country. You are responsible for London. You are not the Mayor of the country. You are the Mayor of London.
When I speak to young people, they are terrified of what is going on in their community and they say to me that they do not see anybody taking responsibility. Where is the Mayor? That is the question I am asking you. What have you done materially? Spending money is not the answer. It is the outcomes. You keep telling us how much money you have spent. That will not give us a safe community. What will give us a safe community is when you get a grip and you explain to people where you are going to make them safe and how you are going to make them safe.
You talked earlier on about victims. Let us be clear. You had never spoken to a victim’s family until 52 people had been murdered and a radio DJ shamed you into contacting those families. If you had contacted them first, you would have had something much more positive to do on the streets of London. We are dying. Our children are dying on the streets because you are not taking the action.

Jennette Arnold: I heard a question in there and, MrMayor, the question goes back to you. Do you wish to answer: what are you doing about the issue of knife crime?

Sadiq Khan: There are quite a few questions there, Chair, which it is only fair that I get a chance to respond to.

Jennette Arnold: You have the floor.
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): The first thing is that I find it astonishing that anybody who truly wants to reduce violent crime does not understand the link that London has with the rest of the country and the breath-taking ignorance to not realise that the National Crime Agency has a role and the breath-taking ignorance to not realise that county lines has a role, but also the failure to properly understand the impact of cuts and the consequences they have demonstrates a lack of skills, experience and expertise to be the Mayor of this great city.
The important thing we are doing in London is making sure we have a public health approach to address this issue, and that includes looking at where there has been success in reducing violent crime. That is outside London, for example, in Glasgow where the Scottish Government has been far more receptive to a public health approach than this Government over the last three and a half years. That means, for example, working with schools to reduce exclusions. That means, for example, making sure there is investment in policing and swifter justice. That means, for example, trying to address the issue of adverse childhood experiences. That means working not just with just faith communities but with civic society as well, to make sure we deal with the causes of violent crime as well as the consequences.
Frankly, Chair, I will not accept a lecture from the adviser to [former Prime Minister and The Rt Hon] DavidCameron and [former Chancellor of the Exchequer and The Rt Hon] GeorgeOsborne about how to reduce violent crime when they were responsible for the massive cuts that led to these consequences.